The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 517–528 | Cite as

Life cycle assessment of wood-based heating in Norway

  • Christian Solli
  • Marte Reenaas
  • Anders Hammer Strømman
  • Edgar G. Hertwich
WOOD BASED HOUSEHOLD HEATING • INPUT-OUTPUT DATA AND THE LEONTIEF PRICE MODEL

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

In this study, we evaluate the environmental effects of wood-based household heating. Wood is a significant source of household heating in Norway, and a comparative life cycle assessment of a wood-based heating system using an old and a modern stove was conducted to estimate the total life cycle benefits associated with the change from old to new combustion technology.

Materials and methods

The study uses a new approach to complete the inventory. Input–output data are used in combination with the Leontief price model to estimate inputs of products and services from the background economy to the birch wood supply chain.

Results

When comparing new and old stove technology, the results show that the new technology contributes to a significantly improved performance (28–80%) for all types of environmental impact studied. As there is a large share of old wood stoves still in use, replacing the old stoves with new ones can lead to substantial reductions in environmental impacts, especially impacts affecting human health. The use phase, i.e., wood combustion, is responsible for over 60% of the impact within all categories. Both the old and new stove provide heating with emissions of greenhouse gases ranging from one third (new stove, ∼80 g CO2-eq/kWh) to half (old stove, ∼110 g CO2-eq/kWh) of the impacts compared to electricity use from the Nordic electricity mix (∼210 g CO2-eq/kWh) to heat the house.

Discussion

Combustion of the wood is found to be most important for all types of impacts, even for global warming, where the CO2 emissions from combustion are treated as “climate neutral.” Products of incomplete combustion are the reason for this, as well as the high contribution to other impact categories. Emission factors for these substances are subject to high uncertainty. Although the combustion phase is the most important stage in the life cycle, transportation distances can play an important role. To render wood as environmentally benign as possible, one should thus seek to shorten the distances from producer to consumer.

Conclusions

There is a significant difference in the life cycle performance of a wood stove using modern technology versus older technologies within all impact categories. In addition, there is a preference to use locally produced firewood over wood transported over long distances.

Recommendations and perspectives

A strong emphasis on phasing out old woodstoves should be maintained and is well justified.

Keywords

Birch wood Household heating LCA Norway Wood-based household heating Wood stove 

Supplementary material

11367_2009_86_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (143 kb)
ESM1 (PDF 146 kb)

References

  1. Athanassiadis D (2000) Energy consumption and exhaust emissions in mechanized timber harvesting operations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 255:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg S, Lindholm EL (2005) Energy use and environmental impacts of forest operations in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 13:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boman C, Nordin A, Öhman M, Boström D, Westerholm R (2005) Emissions from small-scale combustion of biomass fuels—extensive quantification and characterization. Technical Report STEM-BHM (P12648-1 and P21906-1), Energy Technology and Thermal Process Chemistry, Umeå University, Sweden & Analytical Chemistry, Arrhenius Laboratory Stockholm University, Sweden. http://www.itm.su.se/bhm/rapporter/emission/126481o219061.pdf
  4. Bullard I, Clark W, Herendeen RA (1975) The energy cost of goods and services. Energy Policy 30(4):268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, Burger B, Faist Emmenegger M, Frischknecht R, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Röder A (2007) Life cycle inventories of energy systems: results for current systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries. Ecoinvent report 5, Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CHGoogle Scholar
  6. Enova SF (2008) Household heating equipment subsidies in Norway. http://tilskudd2006.enova.no/
  7. Finstad A, Haakonsen G, Rypdal K (2002) Utslipp til luft av dioksiner i Norge—Dokumentasjon av metode og resultater. Technical report, Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  8. Finstad A, Flugsrud K, Haakonsen G, Aasestad K (2003) Vedforbruk, Fyringsvaner og Svevestøv. Undersøkelse om vedforbruk og fyringsvaner i Trondheim og Bergen. Technical Report 2004/27, Statistics Norway (SSB)Google Scholar
  9. Forsberg G (2000) Biomass energy transport: analysis of bioenergy transport chains using life cycle inventory method. Biomass & Bioenergy 19:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guinee JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Haakonsen G, Kvingedal E (2001) Utslipp til luft for vedfyring i Norge. Technical report, Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedberg E, Kristensson A, Ohlsson M, Johansson C, Johansson PA, Swietlicki E, Vesely V, Widequist U, Westerholm R (2002) Chemical and physical characterization of emissions from birch wood combustion in a wood stove. Atmos Environ 36:4823–4837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedman B, Naslund M, Marklund S (2006) Emission of pcdd/f, pcb, and hcb from combustion of firewood and pellets in residential stoves and boilers. Environ Sci Technol 400(16):4968–4975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herendeen R, Brown S (1987) A comparative analysis of net energy from woody biomass. Energy Economy 120(1):75–84Google Scholar
  15. Hertwich EG, Mateles SF, Pease WS, McKone TE (2001) Human toxicity potentials for life cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening. Environ Toxicol Chem 200(4):928–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hertwich EG, Mateles SF, Pease WS, McKone TE (2006) An update of the human toxicity potential with special consideration of conventional air pollutants. IndEcol Working Papers 1/2006, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway, 2006. www.ntnu.no/oko
  17. Holmijoki O, Paloviita A (2001) Life cycle assessment on forestry and forest products, volume COST Action E9, chapter total value of wood-based products—combined LCA and input–output analysis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, pp 267–276Google Scholar
  18. Hubner C, Boos R, Prey T (2005) In-field measurements of pcdd/f emissions from domestic heating appliances for solid fuels. Chemosphere 580(3):367–372Google Scholar
  19. Institute of Environmental Sciences (2004) CML 2 baseline 2000, version 2.03. Technical report, CML. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson LS, Leckner B, Gustavsson L, Cooper D, Tullin C, Potter A (2004) Emission characteristics of modern and old-type residential boilers fired with wood logs and wood pellets. Atmos Environ 38:4183–4195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jøtul (2005) Jøtul product catalogue. Technical report. Jøtul Woodstove Manufacturer, OsloGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsen BM, Nesbakken R (2005) Formålsfordeling av husholdningenes elektrisitetsforbruk i 2001. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavric ED, Konnov AA, De Ruyck J (2004) Dioxin levels in wood combustion—a review. Biomass and Bioenergy 260(2):115–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. Journal of Cleaner Production 100(6):545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leontief W (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 180(3):105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDonald JD, Zielinska B, Fujita EM, Sagebiel JC, Chow JC, Watson JG (2000) Fine particle and gaseous emission rates from residential wood combustion. Environ Sci Technol 34:2080–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michelsen O, Solli C, Strømman AH (2008) Environmental impacts and added value in forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 120(1):69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norges offentlige utredninger (2004) Differensisert El-avgift for husholdningene. Technical report 2004:8, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  29. Norsk Standard (1994) NS3059 enclosed wood heaters—smoke emission—requirements. Norsk StandardGoogle Scholar
  30. Norsk Standard (1997) NS4414—Ved til brensel i husholdninger. Norsk StandardGoogle Scholar
  31. Nussbaumer T, Oser M (2004) Evaluation of biomass combustion based energy systems by cumulative energy demand and energy yield coefficient. Technical report, International Energy Agency IEA Bioenergy Task 32 and Swiss Federal Office of Energy. Verenum, Zürich. ISBN 3-908705-07-XGoogle Scholar
  32. Obernberger I, Brunner T, Bärnthaler G (2006) Properties of solid biofuels—significance and impact. Biomass and Bioenergy 30:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olje- og energidepartementet (1999) St.meld. nr. 29 (1998–99) om energipolitikken. Technical report, Olje- og energidepartementet, Oslo, 1999Google Scholar
  34. Peters G (2006) A comment on “Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model.”. Ecol Econ 59:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006) Structural studies of international trade: the environmental impacts of Norway. Econ Syst Res 180(2):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle of wood and alternative flooring materials. Clim Change 64:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. For Policy Econ 7:249–259Google Scholar
  38. Reijnders L (2006) Conditions for the sustainability of biomass based fuel use. Energy Policy 34:863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ (2003) Choices in calculating life cycle emissions of carbon containing gases associated with forest derived biofuels. Journal of Cleaner Production 11:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seppälä J, Melanen M, Jouttijärvi T, Kauppi L, Leikola N (1998) Forest industry and the environment: a life cycle assessment study from Finland. Resour Conservat Recycl 23:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R (2007) Transport services. Ecoinvent report 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  42. Statistics Norway (2001). Input–output tables 2000, 2001. http://www.ssb.no/nr_en/input-output.html . Disaggregated version delivered by Statistics Norway
  43. Statistics Norway (2004a) Energy statistics, 2004a. www.ssb.no/emner/01/03/10/husenergi/tab-2007-05-23-07.html
  44. Statistics Norway (2004b) Forestry statistics, 2004b. http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/04/20/skogbruk/arkiv/art-2005-01-31-01.html
  45. Statistics Norway (2005) Firewood consumption statistics, 2005. http://www.ssb.no/magasinet/miljo/art-2005-12-05-01.html
  46. Statistics Norway (2006) Forestry statistics 2006. http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/04/20/nos_skogstat/arkiv/nos_c709/tab/2.10.html
  47. Statistics Norway (2007) Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2007. Technical report, Statistics Norway, 2007. http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/
  48. Statistics Norway (2008) Nasjonalregnskap og miljø (NAMEA—National Accounts Matrix including Environmental Accounts). http://www.ssb.no/vis/emner/09/01/nrmiljo/om.html. Accessed fall 2008
  49. Strømman AH, Solli C (2008) Applying Leontief's price model to estimate missing elements in hybrid life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 120(1):26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suh S (2004) Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological–economic model. Ecol Econ 48:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suh S (2006) Reply: downstream cut-offs in integrated hybrid life-cycle assessment. Ecol Econ 59:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. Journal of Cleaner Production 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Treloar GJ (1997) Extracting embodied energy paths from input–output-based hybrid energy analysis method. Econ Syst Res 90(4):375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. US Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Wood burning efficiency and safety. http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/efficiently.html. Accessed spring 2009
  56. Werner F, Althaus HJ, Künniger T, Klaus K (2007) Life cycle inventories of wood as fuel and construction material. Ecoinvent report 9. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Solli
    • 1
  • Marte Reenaas
    • 1
  • Anders Hammer Strømman
    • 1
  • Edgar G. Hertwich
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Ecology ProgramNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations